Quite a bit of UT bashing...

#26
#26
orange+white=heaven said:
If we win on Friday and Saturday, there's no way the selection committee fails to give the Vols a top seed.

There are many who already think we are the second overall number one.
Click to expand...
I would like to win the SEC Tourney just to remove any doubt.
 
#27
#27
cibai said:
There is also a not-so-thinnly-veiled racism implied by the streetball comment.
Click to expand...
Right, because duke and unc are a bunch of white guys... I've heard several ut fans make the same comment about our style of play.
 
#32
#32
i think the selection committee will respect our RPI, SOS and give us the #1 even if we lost in the SEC Tourny, (as long as it isnt the first round we play)!
 
#33
#33
What an announcer says should be irrelevant. Irritating, yes. But irrelevant to what really matters.

Just win, and nothing else matters.
 
#34
#34
crazyguy said:
Right, because duke and unc are a bunch of white guys... I've heard several ut fans make the same comment about our style of play.
Click to expand...

I would say it's the use of the word 'trees' and swinging from them, instead of the word 'streetball', ya dig?
 
#35
#35
An announcer or reporter not predicting you as a #1 seed does not, in and of itself, constitute "bashing." People are free to disagree that you ought to be a 1 seed.

The streetball comment is not surprising because you play up tempo with an emphasis on offense and geting into a scoring rhythm and a consequent deemphasis on defense and rebounding. He probably could have chosen a better way to say it, like that UT wants the final score in the 90's, or something like that. But it isn't exaclty a new observation that UT plays with a fairly wild style.
 
#36
#36
cibai said:
There is also a not-so-thinnly-veiled racism implied by the streetball comment.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Also, apart from hippie-activists in Berkley, people don't hang out in trees. Monkeys do, however. The whole comment smacks of racism.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
An announcer or reporter not predicting you as a #1 seed does not, in and of itself, constitute "bashing." People are free to disagree that you ought to be a 1 seed.

The streetball comment is not surprising because you play up tempo with an emphasis on offense and geting into a scoring rhythm and a consequent deemphasis on defense and rebounding. He probably could have chosen a better way to say it, like that UT wants the final score in the 90's, or something like that. But it isn't exaclty a new observation that UT plays with a fairly wild style.
Click to expand...

Name another team with a resume like ours that is not a lock for a 1 seed.
 
#38
#38
It's because we are not a traditional Basketball Power. They want UNC, UCLA, & Kansas up there. They are the ones people know. I hope we get a 2, we play better as an underdog.:)
 
#39
#39
KB5252 said:
Name another team with a resume like ours that is not a lock for a 1 seed.
Click to expand...


The question is unasnwerable because you don't play identical schedules. No one has a resume quite like yours. Its not an objective science to pick a #1 seed. Its an art.

Personally, I'd make you a #1 seed. Maybe even THE #1 seed if you won the SEC tournament. And I do think you will be one if you advance to the finals of the SEC, win or lose.

But just because other people like other teams more is not bashing you.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
The question is unasnwerable because you don't play identical schedules. No one has a resume quite like yours. Its not an objective science to pick a #1 seed. Its an art.

Personally, I'd make you a #1 seed. Maybe even THE #1 seed if you won the SEC tournament. And I do think you will be one if you advance to the finals of the SEC, win or lose.

But just because other people like other teams more is not bashing you.
Click to expand...

Saying that our game with Memphis should have been played in a park rather than an arena is bashing, however.

Especially when you have two teams who both average over 15 assists a game. One team averages the mosts assists/game in the country.
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
The question is unasnwerable because you don't play identical schedules. No one has a resume quite like yours. Its not an objective science to pick a #1 seed. Its an art.

Personally, I'd make you a #1 seed. Maybe even THE #1 seed if you won the SEC tournament. And I do think you will be one if you advance to the finals of the SEC, win or lose.

But just because other people like other teams more is not bashing you.
Click to expand...

I do not think we are being bashed just disrespected. You are right that all teams don't play each other so you can't compare wins that way. Bottom line is when you compare all the resumes together it is impossible to say we take a back seat to those other teams.
 
#42
#42
dickens821 said:
Saying that our game with Memphis should have been played in a park rather than an arena is bashing, however.

Especially when you have two teams who both average over 15 assists a game. One team averages the mosts assists/game in the country.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that. Two things.

First, I'm not so sure that having a high assist number per game is all that terrific a statistic because it could easily be a function of a lack of passing the ball, running set plays, etc. Now, in your case, especially when you set that screen at the top and Lofton goes around it for the 3, that's a good assist. But a pass in transition from half court to a guy who spots up and takes the shot -- with no thought to slowing the tempo and letting everyone get back -- that's not a good assist.

Second, let me ask you this. Which type of player has more success at the NBA. The guard who could run the college offense, or the forward who runs up and down the court and shoots every time he touches the ball? UT has players much more like the shoot now, think later stars of the NBA.

There is nothing wrong with playing pell mell basketball. If you are hitting your shots, you wear the other team down and win by attrition. That style masks your weaknesses on the inside. In the end, you still win if you score more than the other guy.

So why complain when other people call it something that allows them to justify liking a more stodgy style?


KB5252 said:
I do not think we are being bashed just disrespected. You are right that all teams don't play each other so you can't compare wins that way. Bottom line is when you compare all the resumes together it is impossible to say we take a back seat to those other teams.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call it disrespected so much as underestimated. There is nothing magical about this. If you shoot well, you win. If you don't, you lose. There are no style points in this game.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
I don't know about that. Two things.

First, I'm not so sure that having a high assist number per game is all that terrific a statistic because it could easily be a function of a lack of passing the ball, running set plays, etc. Now, in your case, especially when you set that screen at the top and Lofton goes around it for the 3, that's a good assist. But a pass in transition from half court to a guy who spots up and takes the shot -- with no thought to slowing the tempo and letting everyone get back -- that's not a good assist.

Second, let me ask you this. Which type of player has more success at the NBA. The guard who could run the college offense, or the forward who runs up and down the court and shoots every time he touches the ball? UT has players much more like the shoot now, think later stars of the NBA.

There is nothing wrong with playing pell mell basketball. If you are hitting your shots, you wear the other team down and win by attrition. That style masks your weaknesses on the inside. In the end, you still win if you score more than the other guy.

So why complain when other people call it something that allows them to justify liking a more stodgy style?





I wouldn't call it disrespected so much as underestimated. There is nothing magical about this. If you shoot well, you win. If you don't, you lose. There are no style points in this game.
Click to expand...
You might strongly consider the edit function and go back and delete all of this. It's relatively plain that you know little of basketball or nothing of UT basketball. Either way, you shouldn't be posting as if you know something of either one.

You actually said that one type of assist is better than another.
 
#44
#44
BigPapaVol said:
You might strongly consider the edit function and go back and delete all of this. It's relatively plain that you know little of basketball or nothing of UT basketball. Either way, you shouldn't be posting as if you know something of either one.

You actually said that one type of assist is better than another.
Click to expand...



I considered it and decided that you are oversimplifying my observation just because you don't like it. All I said, when you boil it down, is that UT does not play a lot of half court basektball. So?

If you are shooting well, your style of play is a winning style. I cannot think of a team out there that is as athletic as UT. Bigger fron court, yes. Maybe some individual players that are better, yes. But as a team, UT can run anyone off the floor and that's how you play. There is nothing wrong with that at all -- why not use your strengths?
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
I considered it and decided that you are oversimplifying my observation just because you don't like it. All I said, when you boil it down, is that UT does not play a lot of half court basektball. So?

If you are shooting well, your style of play is a winning style. I cannot think of a team out there that is as athletic as UT. Bigger fron court, yes. Maybe some individual players that are better, yes. But as a team, UT can run anyone off the floor and that's how you play. There is nothing wrong with that at all -- why not use your strengths?
Click to expand...
If you want the line by line analysis of your ridiculous post, we can go there, but it's a colossal waste of time. You know me better than to assume that my comments were based upon the nature of your message. I'm happy to call a spade a spade, always. I don't like your message because it was exactly incorrect.

You might do yourself a favor and look at how well we shot the ball in winning 28 games. It might surprise you to find that we won many games by shooting it poorly. I'll assure you that shooting well and running up and down have not been staples of our game for quite some time now.

We play respectable D in stretches, we rebound well today, we have a myriad of offensive options and we are extremely athletic so we generate several turnovers. We are bigger in the paint than you think and have good scoring options in there today. You're describing an old UT team that hasn't taken the floor in 2008.
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
I don't know about that. Two things.

First, I'm not so sure that having a high assist number per game is all that terrific a statistic because it could easily be a function of a lack of passing the ball, running set plays, etc. Now, in your case, especially when you set that screen at the top and Lofton goes around it for the 3, that's a good assist. But a pass in transition from half court to a guy who spots up and takes the shot -- with no thought to slowing the tempo and letting everyone get back -- that's not a good assist.

Second, let me ask you this. Which type of player has more success at the NBA. The guard who could run the college offense, or the forward who runs up and down the court and shoots every time he touches the ball? UT has players much more like the shoot now, think later stars of the NBA.

There is nothing wrong with playing pell mell basketball. If you are hitting your shots, you wear the other team down and win by attrition. That style masks your weaknesses on the inside. In the end, you still win if you score more than the other guy.

So why complain when other people call it something that allows them to justify liking a more stodgy style?





I wouldn't call it disrespected so much as underestimated. There is nothing magical about this. If you shoot well, you win. If you don't, you lose. There are no style points in this game.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest you watch more than 2 UT games a year before you speak of that which you do not know.
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
First, I'm not so sure that having a high assist number per game is all that terrific a statistic because it could easily be a function of a lack of passing the ball, running set plays, etc. .
Click to expand...
It actually gets no worse than this.
 
#48
#48
I dont get why all this matters....

if we win...who cares what they say, we're the champs

if we lose...then they were right and our style of play cannot win a title...and we go at it again next year...

end. of. discussion.

in my opinion...lol :)
 
#49
#49
BigPapaVol said:
If you want the line by line analysis of your ridiculous post, we can go there, but it's a colossal waste of time. You know me better than to assume that my comments were based upon the nature of your message. I'm happy to call a spade a spade, always. I don't like your message because it was exactly incorrect.

You might do yourself a favor and look at how well we shot the ball in winning 28 games. It might surprise you to find that we won many games by shooting it poorly. I'll assure you that shooting well and running up and down have not been staples of our game for quite some time now.

We play respectable D in stretches, we rebound well today, we have a myriad of offensive options and we are extremely athletic so we generate several turnovers. We are bigger in the paint than you think and have good scoring options in there today. You're describing an old UT team that hasn't taken the floor in 2008.
Click to expand...


I do think that UT has improved over the last ten games or so in rebounding. Not so much on defense, but I agree that there have been stretches of it being better here and there. I don't think that its a function of not physically being able to do it. I think its a function of a style of play that promotes other things.

Nothing wrong with that since you do those other things so well. I said before and say again, I would make you a #1 seed and I think you are good enough to win the whole thing and certainly get to the Final Four.

I'm not bashing you. I guess I'm just trying to explain why it it that others might perceive you as having a style of play that makes you vulnerable.





dickens821 said:
I'd suggest you watch more than 2 UT games a year before you speak of that which you do not know.
Click to expand...



I've watched 5 or 6 of them, all SEC games. Not start to finish in every game, I'll admit. But plenty. Enough to form an impression. Now, it may be wrong. It may just be incomplete. But any rate its my impression and its shared by many. That may be why some are skeptical of a 6 game winning streak against competition that gets better and better each step of the way.

Personally, I am not skeptical. I think UT can get this done. But I can understand how some people would think otherwise.



BigPapaVol said:
It actually gets no worse than this.
Click to expand...


Why?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top